Point of View on Harriet Miers’ Nomination – Part 2
-- Alexander K. McClure
PoliPundit.com
There is another aspect of the commentary on this nomination that should be considered:
<<<
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
He [the President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
>>>
Therefore, a strict interpretation of the Constitution is that the President has the power to appoint a nominee of his choice.
US Code Title 28 Judiciary and Judiciary Procedure or the Code of Federal Regulations gives no qualifications or prerequisites to be a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
It is disturbing then to hear that someone the President nominates is unqualified. Who really determines then whom is qualified? And what are the established legal criteria for qualification that are to be forced upon the President?
Robert Jackson never completed law school or served as a judge. Oh, and it was Justice Jackson who picked William Rehnquist as his law clerk. You may want to make note of the biographic links and note that William Rehnquist was not a judge either.
But, the U.S. Constitution gives us the guidance.
Yes, we must find out what kind of justice Harriet Miers will be. And that will come with the “advice and consent of the Senate.” Yes, she cannot, as John Roberts and Ruth Bader Ginsburg did, speak on what specific issues that may come from the court, but we have a Republican majority on the committee, and I am sure they will give her every opportunity to state her judicial philosophy. I hope that she takes the opportunity to be clear and concise. Then, if the 55 Republican senators still have reservations about her judicial ability, they can join with at least the 22 Democrats who will vote against her.
polipundit.com
house.gov
oyez.org
oyez.org |
